Proletariat vs. Proletariat

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I know this goes against the kuumbaiya mentality, but is it really logical to presume it's in the best interests of group A to help group B in the event of the fall of capitalism?

Example: The proletariat of Planet A (China) holds a monopoly on a desperately needed resource (rare earth minerals) while Planet B (Greece) doesn't really contribute much of value. Besides it being the right thing (and there are many here who don't believe in "right" and "wrong") why would Planet A sacrifice for a weaker player? I know that most here would push for a stateless society, but when you think about it, one of the reasons strong states don't gobble up their weaker neighbors is that it is cheaper to leave them to rot.

Disclaimer: I prefer sentimentality over sound thought processes. Romulans Fuck Yeah!

[Einkarl]

It is in the interest of all proletariat to help each other out.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Given the POTENTIAL of modern production methods to meet everyone's needs it is in the interests for different groups of people to pool their labor and resources - assuming worker's power of course.

But communism depends on this global surplus and so if there was environmental damage to the point where we couldn't feed everyone, and meet other basic needs, then the material rug has been pulled out from under communism and there likely would be a struggle and possible reversion to some kind of elite control of resources.

In micro-level examples we can see how this plays out in disasters - when people fear they don't have enough to survive, they will horde - when they feel they have adequate supplies, they find helping other survivors to be a higher priority.